Copyrights on Car Modding/repairs?

[AG_Styles]

This is starting to be stupid. So goodbye to ecu reflashing in the future?

http://jalopnik.com/carmakers-want-t...210/+tinaamini

statement by automaker alliance:

There may be a misunderstanding here. Attached are our full comments. You’ll see in both the overview and in page 12, we discuss the comprehensive safeguard, a nation-wide Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), that is in place in respect to the aftermarkets part industry. It’s important to note that in addition to the Alliance, the Association of Global Automakers, the Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association and the Coalition for Auto Repair Equality are all a part of the MOU.

go further:

a. Proponents have failed to prove that vehicle owners are owners of copies of Electronic Control Unit (“ECU”) firmware within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. § 117.

so since you don't technically own your ECU code, you will not be able to legally reflash or do any retuning unless you want your pants sued apparently.

I guess automakers are following Hollywood/Apple now.

[eglove]

Meh, doubt it will actually happen.

[rage2]

You're misinterpreting it. You're allowed to reflash. Aftermarket is allowed to tinker. End users aren't allowed to tinker with it (ie reverse engineer etc). You can still flash aftermarket code on it.

To be honest, that doesn't change much, so there might be something I'm missing if automakers are trying to push this. The ECU code in modern cars are so heavily encrypted that even a group effort can't decrypt, hack and reverse engineer it. Bigger aftermarket firms typically work directly with auto makers to understand the code, and to modify the code. They in turn create licensed products that allows smaller tuning firms to modify and tune the ECU.

[AG_Styles]

I'm hoping I'm misinterpreting it. I hate a future where you can't really do anything with car modification. I just don't have faith in companies to not squeeze money out of the car enthusiast. I remember how jailbreaking a phone was illegal until a big hubbub was caused that forced the courts to take another look at that.

I understand that newer cars are loaded with specialized parts that forces the consumer to have to pay dealer rates, as opposed to the usual corner shops (unless they pay a premium for the specialized equipment and annual training); which was a response to consumers visiting non-dealer shops in the past to cut costs.

[AG_Styles]

Listing the vehicle as a “mobile computing device,” the law would hypothetically protect automakers from pesky owners looking to alter any sort of technology in the vehicle that relates to the onboard computer. Flashing your ECU would be a big no no, which could also lead to all sorts of problems for aftermarket shops.

What GM, and even tractor companies like John Deere, argues is that you, as an owner, don’t actually own your car. Rather, you’re sort of just borrowing it for an extended amount of time and paying for the rights to use the technology. If it sounds ridiculous— it is. But it gets even more ludicrous.

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, John Deere argued that “letting people modify car computer systems will result in them pirating music through the on-board entertainment system.”

https://www.yahoo.com/autos/s/gm-for...160000229.html

[Xtrema]

I believe if ECU is encrypted and the aftermarket shop did not obtain the key in any legal way, DMCA will stop them.

So it's going to be very cost prohibitive for APR and the likes.